BLOG

Former Google engineer James Damore was hardly the first person to argue that biological differences between men and women determine career outcomes. Many people — even smart, science-minded ones — have asserted that biological differences can explain the gender gap in math, engineering, and science. A 2005 Gallup poll found that 21% of Americans believed men were better than women in terms of their math and science abilities (though 68% believed men and women were about the same). The fact that this argument keeps coming up means that we need to engage with it and clarify which claims are supported by evidence and which are not.

To address these claims, we need to examine three interrelated questions: Are there gender differences in outcomes achieved by men and women? If so, is there evidence that they are due to biological differences? Is there stronger evidence that they are due to bias?

But are these outcome differences due to biological differences? While there are (of course) biological differences between the sexes, social science has shown that men and women are more similar than different on a wide range of characteristics, from personality to ability to attitude — and that these factors have a larger effect on career outcomes than biology does.

My former colleague Janet Hyde, a developmental psychologist and an authority on gender differences, reviewed 46 meta-analyses that had been conducted on psychological gender differences from 1984 to 2004. (A meta-analysis examines the results from a large number of individual studies and averages their effects to get the closest approximation of the true effect size.) Hyde’s review spanned studies looking at differences between men and women in cognitive abilities, communication, personality traits, measures of well-being, motor skills, and moral reasoning.

She found that 78% of the studies in her sample revealed little to no difference in these measures between men and women; this supports her gender similarities hypothesis, which states that men and women are far more similar than they are different. The only large differences she found related to girls being better than boys in spelling and language, and testing higher than boys on the personality variable of agreeableness/tendermindedness; boys tested higher than girls on motor performance, certain measures of sexuality (masturbation, casual attitudes about sex), and aggression. So there are some gender differences, but most are small to nonexistent.

But can these differences truly be classified as biological? Or are they due to differences in socialization? It’s the old nature/nurture debate — a debate that can be a false one because most human behavior involves complex interactions between genetic, environmental, and epigenetic influences. For example, one study that Damore cited did find gender differences in personality across cultures, but the researchers described the differences as relatively small to moderate and concluded that “human development—long and healthy life, access to education, and economic wealth—is a primary correlate of the gap between men and women in their personality traits.”

And a review of studies on levels of prenatal exposure to testosterone found resultant differences in empathy, aggression, and toy preference between males and females, but found no significant differences in dominance/assertiveness or ability. Unless all of the differences in men’s representation in STEM and leadership are the result of their lack of empathy, high levels of aggression, or toy preferences, there is little evidence that biological differences affect work-related outcomes. In fact, based on the research on leadership, we would expect to see that a lack of empathy and high levels of aggression would hurt a person’s chances of becoming a successful leader, not help them.

On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence to support the impact that environment has on gender differences in society. For example, a review of research on gender differences in math test scores shows that the already small effects have declined over time and tend to be greater in countries with less gender equality. In terms of behavior, a study by economists showed that in cultures where women are dominant, they tend to be more competitive than men. Meta-analytic evidence on gender differences in leadership aspirations showed that differences are decreasing over time — women are closing the gap in terms of wanting to be leaders — suggesting that the gap is more due to society than to biology.

Other data also contradicts the idea that women are biologically predisposed to lower levels of leadership. One meta-analysis of 95 studies found that female leaders tend to be rated by others as significantly more effective than male leaders, and this effect is stronger after 1996. (On the flip side, men rated themselves as significantly better leaders than women, particularly before 1982.) But this data does tell us something about the impact of gender roles (as women tend to rate themselves as less effective leaders) and societal changes (since the effects are diminishing over time).

If the evidence on biological differences is too thin to explain the large gender gaps in leadership roles and STEM careers, is the evidence on gender bias any stronger?

Several studies have shown that employers do discriminate against women and minorities. One robust vein of research uses résumés to test how people respond to different candidates with identical qualifications. For example, in one study, professors rated the identical applications of fictional male or female students. When a male name was used, faculty members rated them as significantly more competent and hirable than the female applicant, and they offered the male applicant a higher starting salary and more career mentoring. The reason for this was that women were perceived as less competent by the faculty members; faculty who had greater bias against women rated female students worse. The effect sizes here were moderate to large, unlike those shown in sex-differences studies. And numerous other studies have had similar results, not just in hiring but in promotion rates, performance evaluations, getting credit for good work, and project assignments.

This body of research also shows why advocating for a “pure meritocracy” — rather than explicitly pursuing diversity — doesn’t help companies overcome bias. In fact, companies that highlight “meritocracy” may actually cause greater bias against women: Experimental studies show that when an organization is referred to as a meritocracy, individuals in managerial positions favor male employees over equally qualified female employees and give them larger rewards. The author theorizes that calling the organization a meritocracy may create moral credentialing (when one’s track record as egalitarian makes them feel justified in making nonequalitarian decisions) or greater self-perceived objectivity, giving them license to discriminate against women.

Calling for a meritocracy and denying that workplace inequality still exists captures what scientists refer to as modern sexism. Modern sexism is characterized by “beliefs that discrimination against women is a thing of the past, antagonism towards women who are making political and economic demands, and resentment about special favors for women. Notably, individuals espousing such views do not regard these notions as sexist or unfair and…conclude that, given the even playing field upon which the two sexes now compete, the continuing under-representation of women in certain roles (e.g., management positions…) must be a result of women’s own choices or inferiority as opposed to discrimination.”

In his memo, Damore wrote, “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” and that we should assume “people have good intentions.” But the gender gap in the workforce can be explained by sexism, just as the race gap can be explained by racism. When workplace practices aim to support underrepresented groups, that does not mean they are unfairly biased against overrepresented groups. It just means that we need more than good intentions to change biased behavior.

We all want systems that are fair. But we need to consider how to make them fair for everyone.

Not even Drew Houston '05, founder of Dropbox, was sure he’d get in to MIT. But that didn’t stop him, or thousands of other students and alumni, from applying. The gamble paid off: Houston got to tear up all his other college applications because he was accepted into his dream school.

In this video, alumni recount the process of getting into MIT: their applications, their worries and fears during the waiting period, and finally, those five magic words: “You’ve been accepted to MIT.” No matter how long the odds, the decision to take that chance changed their lives.

The MIT freshman application for the prospective Class of 2022 is now available via MIT Admissions. Take a chance to be a part of an innovative community helping to solve the world’s greatest challenges.

As “playful” technologies such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) become increasingly prevalent in the gaming world — and the real world — MIT continues to find ways to support innovation and entrepreneurship in those areas.

In January, the MIT Game Lab, along with Bayview Labs and the Seraph Group, announced the launch of Play Labs, a new summer accelerator specifically for playful technologies. The first cohort of 13 startups was selected in June.

Tuesday night, at the inaugural Play Labs demo event, those startups presented to the public the products they’ve developed in the accelerator. Afterward, the crowd was treated to live demonstrations of the technologies.

VR-focused startups presented prototypes for virtual pets, nausea-reducing games, novel social and strategy games, and even advanced corporate and fitness training applications. Other startups incorporated AR features into popular activities, such as escape games and paintballing. Still others brought new social features, advanced computer vision, and real-time data analysis to eSports, which is competitive online gaming complete with spectators and betting.

In his opening remarks, video game entrepreneur Rizwan Virk ’92, executive director and co-founder of Play Labs and Bayview, discussed the inspiration for and importance of launching an accelerator focused entirely on playful technologies.

Video games have been critical to the advancement of computer science, he said. Artificial intelligence traces its roots to computers designed to play chess, chat bots have origins in text adventure games, and virtual reality was inspired by first-person shooters. “Most technologies we use have some root in games,” he said to the crowd gathered in Room 10-250.

But Play Labs was also inspired, in part, by personal experience. Struggling to fund his first startup, Brainstorm, Virk had to buy computers to test his software and return them within 30 days for a full refund. “We wanted to give this new generation of startups a way to jump across these problems,” he said.

Each startup that entered Play Labs in June received an initial investment of $20,000, “so they didn’t have to buy and return their own computers,” Virk joked. The startups also received weekly mentorship from experienced playful tech entrepreneurs from MIT and elsewhere. Now that they’ve graduated, the startups are eligible for $80,000 in additional funding from the accelerator and its partners.

During the demo event, each startup delivered a brief presentation of their technology to a crowd of investors, MIT community members, and the general public. An online stream also aired on the West Coast and in China, two major areas for investment. Startups were seeking seed capital of a few hundred thousand to about a million dollars.

But the real fun started after the pitches, when the large crowd tested out the prototypes outside the lecture hall, in the lobby under the MIT dome, and outside of Building 10.

Surrounded by eager testers was RidgeLine Labs, creator of RoVR, a VR dog simulator that lets users care for a virtual canine in an ever-expanding virtual world. During the pitches, co-founder Henry Zhou, a Tufts University student, presented a video of the simulation, where the user found a cute, friendly pup in a box in a park, then went through various scenarios of feeding, bathing, walking, training, and playing with the dog. In the lobby, excited attendees donned the VR headset and handsets to scoop up the dog and pet it in their arms.

The idea was conceived after Zhou noticed the abundance of pet videos posted on social media — and “because my mom never let me have a dog growing up,” Zhou told MIT News. RoVR can be used by people who may not have access to real pets, he said.

Before entering Play Labs, RidgeLine’s virtual dog was “a lot uglier,” Zhou said. Among other things, the accelerator provided much-needed capital to hire employees to refine the animation.

Now, the simulation is on Kickstarter, has a much larger network of investors and industry experts, and is ready to launch. “The marketing, the fundraising, the pitching skills that we gained from Play Labs were huge. Now I feel truly prepared to take the product from prototype to release,” Zhou said.

Another MIT spinout invented a VR game that incorporated a solution to a major VR issue: nausea. VRemedy Labs is developing an intensity “dial,” based on MIT research, that mitigates queasiness caused by VR games. Features such as light, movement, speed, and acceleration contribute to nausea. Games generally offer only either a comfort setting, with features minimized, or an exciting setting, with features at full intensity. The startup’s dial, however, lets players choose between 100 different, slightly modified levels of intensity.

“When you turn the dial up, features change accordingly to what feels most comfortable,” co-founder Eric LaCava, a senior in electrical engineering and computer science told MIT News. “Someone playing at 55 is playing a very similar game to someone playing at 100, but the attacks on their body are lessened.”

At the event, the startup demonstrated its first superhero game, I Hate Heroes, which it’s been developing for only a month and a half. LaCava said Play Labs provided the first-time entrepreneurs, among other things, valuable mentorship in launching their startup. “We needed the guidance a lot more than we needed the money,” LaCava said. “They really walked us through what it’s like to do this for the first time … and how to get into this market without falling prey to some of the things startups usually do.” The startup is now in talks with Sony and other companies as potential partners.

The AR-based startups updated two very popular types of hobbies: escape rooms, where players are locked in a room and must solve puzzles to exit, and action sports, such as paintball and airsoft. Escape Labs is developing holographic content — such as portals, creatures, and interactive puzzles — that players can interact with in physical escape rooms. A growing industry, there are now 1,900 escape room locations in the United States alone.

Total Respawn, which had a long line at its booth outside Building 10, creates real-life AR first-person shooter games for action sports arenas. In his pitch, co-founder Mark Belmarsh showed a video of the startup’s first game, where a player uses a real paintball or airsoft gun to shoot zombies. The technology allows for video game graphics in physical arenas, tracking hits digitally, and sharing content online, much like an eSport. The startup has two locations signed on for this fall.

“Anything capable of happening in a video game is capable of recreating in augmented reality [for the arena], so helicopters flying around, explosions, you name it,” Belmarsh said. Moreover, this will “transform traditional action sports today from niche hobbies with cult following into a competitive sport with mass market appeal.”

Of course, it wasn’t all games. Some startups developed their technologies for reasons other than gaming. Coresights, for instance, combines virtual and augmented reality technologies with biometric wearables to improve corporate and wellness training. Similarly, Minda Labs developed a VR application for diversity training in simulated scenarios to build empathy and communication skills. And Datavized creates unique VR 3-D visualizations of data that aim to thoroughly immerse people in information to improve decision making.

When we have a new experience, the memory of that event is stored in a neural circuit that connects several parts of the hippocampus and other brain structures. Each cluster of neurons may store different aspects of the memory, such as the location where the event occurred or the emotions associated with it.

Neuroscientists who study memory have long believed that when we recall these memories, our brains turn on the same hippocampal circuit that was activated when the memory was originally formed. However, MIT neuroscientists have now shown, for the first time, that recalling a memory requires a “detour” circuit that branches off from the original memory circuit.

“This study addresses one of the most fundamental questions in brain research — namely how episodic memories are formed and retrieved — and provides evidence for an unexpected answer: differential circuits for retrieval and formation,” says Susumu Tonegawa, the Picower Professor of Biology and Neuroscience, the director of the RIKEN-MIT Center for Neural Circuit Genetics at the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, and the study’s senior author.

This distinct recall circuit has never been seen before in a vertebrate animal, although a study published last year found a similar recall circuit in the worm Caenorhabditis elegans.

Dheeraj Roy, a recent MIT PhD recipient, and research scientist Takashi Kitamura are the lead authors of the paper, which appears in the Aug. 17 online edition of Cell. Other MIT authors are postdocs Teruhiro Okuyama and Sachie Ogawa, and graduate student Chen Sun. Yuichi Obata and Atsushi Yoshiki of the RIKEN Brain Science Institute are also authors of the paper.

Parts unknown

The hippocampus is divided into several regions with different memory-related functions — most of which have been well-explored, but a small area called the subiculum has been little-studied. Tonegawa’s lab set out to investigate this region using mice that were genetically engineered so that their subiculum neurons could be turned on or off using light.

The researchers used this approach to control memory cells during a fear-conditioning event — that is, a mild electric shock delivered when the mouse is in a particular chamber.

Previous research has shown that encoding these memories involves cells in a part of the hippocampus called CA1, which then relays information to another brain structure called the entorhinal cortex. In each location, small subsets of neurons are activated, forming memory traces known as engrams.

“It’s been thought that the circuits which are involved in forming engrams are the same as the circuits involved in the re-activation of these cells that occurs during the recall process,” Tonegawa says.

However, scientists had previously identified anatomical connections that detour from CA1 through the subiculum, which then connects to the entorhinal cortex. The function of this circuit, and of the subiculum in general, was unknown.

In one group of mice, the MIT team inhibited neurons of the subiculum as the mice underwent fear conditioning, which had no effect on their ability to later recall the experience. However, in another group, they inhibited subiculum neurons after fear conditioning had occurred, when the mice were placed back in the original chamber. These mice did not show the usual fear response, demonstrating that their ability to recall the memory was impaired.

This provides evidence that the detour circuit involving the subiculum is necessary for memory recall but not for memory formation. Other experiments revealed that the direct circuit from CA1 to the entorhinal cortex is not necessary for memory recall, but is required for memory formation.

“Initially, we did not expect the outcome would come out this way,” Tonegawa says. “We just planned to explore what the function of the subiculum could be.”

“This paper is a tour de force of advanced neuroscience techniques, with an intriguing core result showing the existence and importance of different pathways for formation and retrieval of hippocampus-dependent memories,” says Karl Deisseroth, a professor of bioengineering and psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University, who was not involved in the study.

Editing memories

Why would the hippocampus need two distinct circuits for memory formation and recall? The researchers found evidence for two possible explanations. One is that interactions of the two circuits make it easier to edit or update memories. As the recall circuit is activated, simultaneous activation of the memory formation circuit allows new information to be added.

“We think that having these circuits in parallel helps the animal first recall the memory, and when needed, encode new information,” Roy says. “It’s very common when you remember a previous experience, if there’s something new to add, to incorporate the new information into the existing memory.”

Another possible function of the detour circuit is to help stimulate longer-term stress responses. The researchers found that the subiculum connects to a pair of structures in the hypothalamus known as the mammillary bodies, which stimulates the release of stress hormones called corticosteroids. That takes place at least an hour after the fearful memory is recalled.

While the researchers identified the two-circuit system in experiments involving memories with an emotional component (both positive and negative), the system is likely involved in any kind of episodic memory, the researchers say.

The findings also suggest an intriguing possibility related to Alzheimer’s disease, according to the researchers. Last year, Roy and others in Tonegawa’s lab found that mice with a version of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease have trouble recalling memories but are still able to form new memories. The new study suggests that this subiculum circuit may be affected in Alzheimer’s disease, although the researchers have not studied this.

The research was funded by the RIKEN Brain Science Institute, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the JPB Foundation.

When we have a new experience, the memory of that event is stored in a neural circuit that connects several parts of the hippocampus and other brain structures. Each cluster of neurons may store different aspects of the memory, such as the location where the event occurred or the emotions associated with it.

Neuroscientists who study memory have long believed that when we recall these memories, our brains turn on the same hippocampal circuit that was activated when the memory was originally formed. However, MIT neuroscientists have now shown, for the first time, that recalling a memory requires a “detour” circuit that branches off from the original memory circuit.

“This study addresses one of the most fundamental questions in brain research — namely how episodic memories are formed and retrieved — and provides evidence for an unexpected answer: differential circuits for retrieval and formation,” says Susumu Tonegawa, the Picower Professor of Biology and Neuroscience, the director of the RIKEN-MIT Center for Neural Circuit Genetics at the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, and the study’s senior author.

This distinct recall circuit has never been seen before in a vertebrate animal, although a study published last year found a similar recall circuit in the worm Caenorhabditis elegans.

Dheeraj Roy, a recent MIT PhD recipient, and research scientist Takashi Kitamura are the lead authors of the paper, which appears in the Aug. 17 online edition of Cell. Other MIT authors are postdocs Teruhiro Okuyama and Sachie Ogawa, and graduate student Chen Sun. Yuichi Obata and Atsushi Yoshiki of the RIKEN Brain Science Institute are also authors of the paper.

Parts unknown

The hippocampus is divided into several regions with different memory-related functions — most of which have been well-explored, but a small area called the subiculum has been little-studied. Tonegawa’s lab set out to investigate this region using mice that were genetically engineered so that their subiculum neurons could be turned on or off using light.

The researchers used this approach to control memory cells during a fear-conditioning event — that is, a mild electric shock delivered when the mouse is in a particular chamber.

Previous research has shown that encoding these memories involves cells in a part of the hippocampus called CA1, which then relays information to another brain structure called the entorhinal cortex. In each location, small subsets of neurons are activated, forming memory traces known as engrams.

“It’s been thought that the circuits which are involved in forming engrams are the same as the circuits involved in the re-activation of these cells that occurs during the recall process,” Tonegawa says.

However, scientists had previously identified anatomical connections that detour from CA1 through the subiculum, which then connects to the entorhinal cortex. The function of this circuit, and of the subiculum in general, was unknown.

In one group of mice, the MIT team inhibited neurons of the subiculum as the mice underwent fear conditioning, which had no effect on their ability to later recall the experience. However, in another group, they inhibited subiculum neurons after fear conditioning had occurred, when the mice were placed back in the original chamber. These mice did not show the usual fear response, demonstrating that their ability to recall the memory was impaired.

This provides evidence that the detour circuit involving the subiculum is necessary for memory recall but not for memory formation. Other experiments revealed that the direct circuit from CA1 to the entorhinal cortex is not necessary for memory recall, but is required for memory formation.

“Initially, we did not expect the outcome would come out this way,” Tonegawa says. “We just planned to explore what the function of the subiculum could be.”

“This paper is a tour de force of advanced neuroscience techniques, with an intriguing core result showing the existence and importance of different pathways for formation and retrieval of hippocampus-dependent memories,” says Karl Deisseroth, a professor of bioengineering and psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University, who was not involved in the study.

Editing memories

Why would the hippocampus need two distinct circuits for memory formation and recall? The researchers found evidence for two possible explanations. One is that interactions of the two circuits make it easier to edit or update memories. As the recall circuit is activated, simultaneous activation of the memory formation circuit allows new information to be added.

“We think that having these circuits in parallel helps the animal first recall the memory, and when needed, encode new information,” Roy says. “It’s very common when you remember a previous experience, if there’s something new to add, to incorporate the new information into the existing memory.”

Another possible function of the detour circuit is to help stimulate longer-term stress responses. The researchers found that the subiculum connects to a pair of structures in the hypothalamus known as the mammillary bodies, which stimulates the release of stress hormones called corticosteroids. That takes place at least an hour after the fearful memory is recalled.

While the researchers identified the two-circuit system in experiments involving memories with an emotional component (both positive and negative), the system is likely involved in any kind of episodic memory, the researchers say.

The findings also suggest an intriguing possibility related to Alzheimer’s disease, according to the researchers. Last year, Roy and others in Tonegawa’s lab found that mice with a version of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease have trouble recalling memories but are still able to form new memories. The new study suggests that this subiculum circuit may be affected in Alzheimer’s disease, although the researchers have not studied this.

The research was funded by the RIKEN Brain Science Institute, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the JPB Foundation.

Organizations spend considerable resources on corporate values and mission statements, but even the most inspiring of these — from Volvo’s commitment to safety to Facebook’s desire to connect people — tend to fade into the background during the daily bustle of the work day.

What workers really need, to feel engaged in and satisfied by their jobs, is an inner sense of purpose. As Deloitte found in a 2016 study, people feel loyal to companies that support their own career and life ambitions — in other words, what’s meaningful to them. And, although that research focused on millennials, in the decade I’ve spent coaching seasoned executives, I’ve found that it’s a common attitude across generations. No matter one’s level, industry or career, we all need to find a personal sense of meaning in what we do.

Leaders can foster this inner sense of purpose — what matters right now, in each individual’s life and career — with simple conversation. One technique is action identification theory, which posits that there are many levels of description for any action. For example, right now I’m writing this article. At a low level, I’m typing words into a keyboard. At a high level, I’m creating better leaders. When leaders walk employees up this ladder, they can help them find meaning in even the most mundane tasks.

Regular check-ins that use five areas of inquiry are another way to help employees explore and call out their inner purpose. Leaders can ask:

What are you good at doing? Which work activities require less effort? What do you take on because you believe you’re the best person to do it? What have you gotten noticed for throughout your career? The idea here is to help people identify their strengths and open possibilities from there.

What do you enjoy? In a typical workweek, what do you look forward to doing? What do you see on your calendar that energizes you? If you could design your job with no restrictions, how would you spend your time? These questions help people find or rediscover what they love about work.

What feels most useful? Which work outcomes make you most proud? Which of your tasks are most critical to the team or organization? What are the highest priorities for your life and how does your work fit in? This line of inquiry highlights the inherent value of certain work.

What creates a sense of forward momentum? What are you learning that you’ll use in the future? What do you envision for yourself next? How’s your work today getting you closer to what you want for yourself? The goal here is to show how today’s work helps them advance toward future goals.

How do you relate to others? Which working partnerships are best for you? What would an office of your favorite people look like? How does your work enhance your family and social connections? These questions encourage people to think about and foster relationships that make work more meaningful.

It’s not easy to guide others toward purpose, but these strategies can help.

On Aug. 21, a solar eclipse will occur over the United States. Hotels throughout the 70-mile-wide path of totality from Oregon to South Carolina have been completely booked by amateur astronomers and excited skywatchers. Even outside the path of totality, a partial solar eclipse will take place across the entire continental U.S. Scientists at MIT are taking advantage of this rare event to study its effects on weather in the near-Earth space around our planet, a place directly affected by our nearest star — the sun.

MIT’s Haystack Observatory is one of several institutions whose ground-based eclipse research has been funded by NASA. A team led by Haystack Assistant Director Phil Erickson will investigate the effects of the eclipse on the Earth’s ionosphere, using the National Science Foundation-supported Millstone Hill incoherent scatter radar facility in Westford, Massachusetts, together with an extensive network of ground-based GPS receivers, National Science Foundation Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, and NASA's TIMED satellite mission.

Scientists at Haystack will also monitor supplementary GPS signal collection sites within the path of totality to augment existing receivers during the eclipse. These additional GPS receiver sites will collect data at a special, advanced rate before, during, and after the eclipse. Data will be added to a worldwide observation set gathered from the network of GPS and other navigational satellite systems that surround the Earth, providing valuable information on the atmospheric changes that occur during the eclipse.

“The most exciting thing about the eclipse for scientists is that we’ll be able to monitor this event in incredible detail, using a combination of high-precision satellite networks all along the path of totality,” says Anthea Coster, Haystack Observatory assistant director. “The specially equipped receivers we’re placing across the continent will enable us to gather data of unprecedented quality.”

Haystack researchers will study the eclipse’s effects on the ionosphere, the charged part of the Earth’s upper atmosphere that is created daily by solar radiation on the upper neutral atmosphere. Essential communications and navigational satellite systems are located above the ionosphere, and geomagnetic storms have the potential to disrupt these systems as well as our electrical power grids. By studying the effects of the eclipse on the ionosphere, we can learn more about the atmospheric response to solar flares and other space weather events.

During the eclipse the sun will, in effect, turn off and back on very quickly, potentially causing waves called traveling ionospheric disturbances (TIDs). Both hemispheres are affected by such ionospheric events, due to electrical coupling across hemispheres. Research during this eclipse will involve much more precise and better distributed ground-based monitoring tools than ever before, in combination with GPS and other satellite overflights.

Haystack will livestream changes in the ionosphere as seen by the Millstone Hill radar data on the day of the eclipse, along with a live optical feed of the sun’s disk from MIT Wallace Observatory. Haystack and Wallace are also co-hosting an eclipse-watching event in Westford. The event is currently at maximum capacity, but Cambridge-based eclipse watchers can participate in the on-campus event hosted by the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences or other local viewing events.

Please note: Eye protection is essential for all eclipse viewers, as well as for your camera lens. Never look directly at the sun during the eclipse, and remind children of the danger! If you are using your own solar glasses, be sure to first consult the American Astronomical Society list of reputable vendors of solar viewing products.

The business case for diversity is clear. Diversity can boost innovation and employee engagement, and companies with greater gender and racial diversity financially outperform their peers. Yet progress within organizations has been slow – there is still a lack of women and minorities in leadership positions, and certain industries like tech and finance are lacking diversity at all levels. And many diversity programs fail. Based on evidence that diversity initiatives are more effective if they start at the top, I interviewed 11 CEOs who have made a public commitment to diversity about how they are creating more diverse workforces.

The structured interviews were conducted by me over the phone, Skype, or in person, between February and June 2017. I asked three questions: Why do you care about diversity? What have you done to promote diversity? What benefits have you seen from having a more diverse company? Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. I read the transcripts and looked for common themes in the data.

The idea to do this study and connections with some of the CEOs came from a presentation I gave at the 2016 Billie Jean King Leadership initiative symposium.

The CEOs raised a variety of reasons for caring about diversity—the most common being that they believed greater diversity leads to greater diversity of thought, to the ability to attract and retain top talent, and to a better understanding of their customer base. Susan Wojcicki of YouTube said that diversity is necessary for preventing homogeneity, falling behind, and losing their competitive edge. And Marc Benioff of Salesforce said, “Diversity is an important part of our culture of equality. Our employees are telling us that they want to work for a company that cares about diversity, and it helps us recruit people whose values align to ours.”

Some of the programs the CEOs discussed include well-funded and executive-sponsored employee resource groups, women’s mentoring and leadership programs, cross-functional task forces, and equitable benefits. For example, Gap Inc. created a program called Women and Opportunity that aims to develop women for future leadership roles at Gap. Nearly 87% of their current female executives (versus 81% of the men) were promoted from within, and 18% of them got their start in a Gap store. YouTube offers paid parental leave to all of its employees as an effort to keep more women in tech. Staples requires its 35 senior vice presidents to sponsor high-potential female talent for leadership positions.

My interviews with the CEOs highlighted four key lessons that other leaders should keep in mind when trying to make their organizations more diverse and inclusive.

Lead by example when it comes to diversity. A CEO’s actions, whether on or off the job, signal the extent to which diversity is valued. Kevin Johnson (Starbucks) said, “In order to make great progress the CEO needs to take this on as one of those personal initiatives that they’re going to be involved with and personally drive.” Marc Benioff (Salesforce) has embodied this concept of leading by example and signaling how much he cares about equality: he publicly opposed discriminatory legislation in states like Indiana and Georgia and marched alongside his employees in the Women’s March.

Sometimes leading by example means making difficult decisions. Kathryn Maher (Wikimedia) and Kevin Johnson (Starbucks) talked about refusing to fill a leadership position until they had a diverse slate of candidates to select from. Sallie Krawcheck (Ellevest) also described deciding to hire people who could bring in new perspectives over those who had similar backgrounds to others in the organization. She felt that the benefits of “culture add” (over culture fit) needed to be considered as part of the hiring criteria.

Many of the leaders I interviewed also speak at conferences about diversity and write openly about its importance. For example, John Rogers (Ariel Investments) hosts conferences focused on encouraging board room discussions on civil rights and works to promote diversity within the professional service firms that work with institutions like the University of Chicago. Similarly, David Cohen (Techstars) started the Techstars Foundation to promote diversity in entrepreneurship by funding women-led companies and projects that promote more women in tech.

Hold yourself and others accountable on diversity initiatives. Data and deadlines are also imperative to making diversity initiatives work. “Saying there is no deadline on this, or that things will right themselves, is an ahistorical way of looking at the advances that have been made in terms of equity and representation,” Kathryn Maher (Wikimedia) said. “It has always required people to do the work. It has always required people to stand up and make it a priority.”

Indeed, research has shown that setting and following through on diversity goals is the most effective method for increasing underrepresentation of women and minorities. Susan Wojcicki (YouTube) asks managers for updates on their numbers around diversity. Through efforts focused on supporting other women, providing longer maternity leave, and funding women’s groups, she has increased the representation of female employees from 24% to nearly 30% since taking over as CEO of YouTube in 2014.

Omar Ishrak (Medtronic) heads their diversity council and signs off on all diversity goals, such as increasing the diversity of their board of directors and diversity in their management and executive ranks. By 2020, they aspire to have a global workforce where 40% of management and higher-level roles are held by women and a U.S.-based workforce where 20% of management and higher-level roles are held by ethnically diverse talent.

Starbucks has the goal of increasing the representation of women and minorities in leadership to 50% by 2020 through expanding the leadership pipeline and holding leadership accountable to diversity and inclusion goals. Similarly, in 2015 Techstars committed to doubling the representation of women and minorities in their programs within four years. And knowing that diverse companies yield better stock returns, John Rogers (Ariel Investments) pushes all of the companies they invest in to have diverse boards.

Foster diversity throughout the organization. Many CEOs talked about the importance of having diverse teams at all levels of the company – from the frontlines to middle management to senior leadership. Shira Goodman of Staples, for example, has created programs to hire, develop, and retain more female employees, in order to have women represented equally at all levels of the organization.

According to Kaiser Permanente’s year-end 2016 numbers, more than 60% of the total workforce (of 186,497 employees) are members of racial, ethnic, and cultural minorities, and more than 73% are women. More than 50% of the management and professional positions are held by racial and cultural minorities and 75% are held by women. In 2016, 50% of the Executive Medical Directors group were women and 29% of the Health Plan Organization’s C-Suite were women. According to CEO Bernard J. Tyson, they achieved these outcomes through deliberate planning, development of current talent, and outreach within the communities that they serve.

Broaden your perspective on diversity. Many of the leaders I interviewed have been recognized for addressing racial and gender diversity at their companies, but also issues faced by LGBTQ workers, veterans, and people with disabilities. “Equality takes many different forms—income, education, racial, gender, LGBTQ, ability. There’s so much work to be done across all of these issues as we fight for equality for all,” said Marc Benioff (Salesforce).

Wikimedia demonstrated one way to ensure that all employees feel safe being themselves at work: they created a non-discrimination policy that includes explicit protections and expanded definitions related to gender identity and expression, disability, citizenship, and ancestry.

The CEOs talked about realizing that equality is not just giving everyone the same things, but about giving people what they need. As Bernard J. Tyson (Kaiser Permanente) told me, “We’ve evolved from equality to equity. Equality says everybody gets equal. Equity says no, everybody gets what they need. Part of building an inclusive environment is not how you’re going to change the person. It’s how you’re going to change yourself and the environment in which the person is going to have to succeed.” Kaiser Permanente has domestic partner benefits to support the needs of its LGBTQ community and has taken great strides in increasing accessibility for individuals with disabilities.

The companies reviewed here are some of the most successful in the world. And they succeed while working to create and maintain diverse workforces. What they’ve made clear is that diversity programs alone are not enough to improve diversity in most organizations. But CEOs have the power to champion diversity by leading by example, setting goals and utilizing metrics, and holding their companies accountable.

The business case for diversity is clear. Diversity can boost innovation and employee engagement, and companies with greater gender and racial diversity financially outperform their peers. Yet progress within organizations has been slow – there is still a lack of women and minorities in leadership positions, and certain industries like tech and finance are lacking diversity at all levels. And many diversity programs fail. Based on evidence that diversity initiatives are more effective if they start at the top, I interviewed 11 CEOs who have made a public commitment to diversity about how they are creating more diverse workforces.

The structured interviews were conducted by me over the phone, Skype, or in person, between February and June 2017. I asked three questions: Why do you care about diversity? What have you done to promote diversity? What benefits have you seen from having a more diverse company? Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. I read the transcripts and looked for common themes in the data.

The idea to do this study and connections with some of the CEOs came from a presentation I gave at the 2016 Billie Jean King Leadership initiative symposium.

The CEOs raised a variety of reasons for caring about diversity—the most common being that they believed greater diversity leads to greater diversity of thought, to the ability to attract and retain top talent, and to a better understanding of their customer base. Susan Wojcicki of YouTube said that diversity is necessary for preventing homogeneity, falling behind, and losing their competitive edge. And Marc Benioff of Salesforce said, “Diversity is an important part of our culture of equality. Our employees are telling us that they want to work for a company that cares about diversity, and it helps is recruit people whose values align to ours.”

Some of the programs the CEOs discussed include well-funded and executive-sponsored employee resource groups, women’s mentoring and leadership programs, cross-functional task forces, and equitable benefits. For example, Gap Inc. created a program called Women and Opportunity that aims to develop women for future leadership roles at Gap. Nearly 87% of their current female executives (versus 81% of the men) were promoted from within, and 18% of them got their start in a Gap store. YouTube offers paid parental leave to all of its employees as an effort to keep more women in tech. Staples requires its 35 senior vice presidents to sponsor high-potential female talent for leadership positions.

My interviews with the CEOs highlighted four key lessons that other leaders should keep in mind when trying to make their organizations more diverse and inclusive.

Lead by example when it comes to diversity. A CEO’s actions, whether on or off the job, signal the extent to which diversity is valued. Kevin Johnson (Starbucks) said, “In order to make great progress the CEO needs to take this on as one of those personal initiatives that they’re going to be involved with and personally drive.” Marc Benioff (Salesforce) has embodied this concept of leading by example and signaling how much he cares about equality: he publicly opposed discriminatory legislation in states like Indiana and Georgia and marched alongside his employees in the Women’s March.

Sometimes leading by example means making difficult decisions. Kathryn Maher (Wikimedia) and Kevin Johnson (Starbucks) talked about refusing to fill a leadership position until they had a diverse slate of candidates to select from. Sallie Krawcheck (Ellevest) also described deciding to hire people who could bring in new perspectives over those who had similar backgrounds to others in the organization. She felt that the benefits of “culture add” (over culture fit) needed to be considered as part of the hiring criteria.

Many of the leaders I interviewed also speak at conferences about diversity and write openly about its importance. For example, John Rogers (Ariel Investments) hosts conferences focused on encouraging board room discussions on civil rights and works to promote diversity within the professional service firms that work with institutions like the University of Chicago. Similarly, David Cohen (Techstars) started the Techstars Foundation to promote diversity in entrepreneurship by funding women-led companies and projects that promote more women in tech.

Hold yourself and others accountable on diversity initiatives. Data and deadlines are also imperative to making diversity initiatives work. “Saying there is no deadline on this, or that things will right themselves, is an ahistorical way of looking at the advances that have been made in terms of equity and representation,” Kathryn Maher (Wikimedia) said. “It has always required people to do the work. It has always required people to stand up and make it a priority.”

Indeed, research has shown that setting and following through on diversity goals is the most effective method for increasing underrepresentation of women and minorities. Susan Wojcicki (YouTube) asks managers for updates on their numbers around diversity. Through efforts focused on supporting other women, providing longer maternity leave, and funding women’s groups, she has increased the representation of female employees from 24% to nearly 30% since taking over as CEO of YouTube in 2014.

Omar Ishrak (Medtronic) heads their diversity council and signs off on all diversity goals, such as increasing the diversity of their board of directors and diversity in their management and executive ranks. By 2020, they aspire to have a global workforce where 40% of management and higher-level roles are held by women and a U.S.-based workforce where 20% of management and higher-level roles are held by ethnically diverse talent.

Starbucks has the goal of increasing the representation of women and minorities in leadership to 50% by 2020 through expanding the leadership pipeline and holding leadership accountable to diversity and inclusion goals. Similarly, in 2015 Techstars committed to doubling the representation of women and minorities in their programs within four years. And knowing that diverse companies yield better stock returns, John Rogers (Ariel Investments) pushes all of the companies they invest in to have diverse boards.

Foster diversity throughout the organization. Many CEOs talked about the importance of having diverse teams at all levels of the company – from the frontlines to middle management to senior leadership. Shira Goodman of Staples, for example, has created programs to hire, develop, and retain more female employees, in order to have women represented equally at all levels of the organization.

According to Kaiser Permanente’s year-end 2016 numbers, more than 60% of the total workforce (of 186,497 employees) are members of racial, ethnic, and cultural minorities, and more than 73% are women. More than 50% of the management and professional positions are held by racial and cultural minorities and 75% are held by women. In 2016, 50% of the Executive Medical Directors group were women and 29% of the Health Plan Organization’s C-Suite were women. According to CEO Bernard J. Tyson, they achieved these outcomes through deliberate planning, development of current talent, and outreach within the communities that they serve.

Broaden your perspective on diversity. Many of the leaders I interviewed have been recognized for addressing racial and gender diversity at their companies, but also issues faced by LGBTQ workers, veterans, and people with disabilities. “Equality takes many different forms—income, education, racial, gender, LGBTQ, ability. There’s so much work to be done across all of these issues as we fight for equality for all,” said Marc Benioff (Salesforce).

Wikimedia demonstrated one way to ensure that all employees feel safe being themselves at work: they created a non-discrimination policy that includes explicit protections and expanded definitions related to gender identity and expression, disability, citizenship, and ancestry.

The CEOs talked about realizing that equality is not just giving everyone the same things, but about giving people what they need. As Bernard J. Tyson (Kaiser Permanente) told me, “We’ve evolved from equality to equity. Equality says everybody gets equal. Equity says no, everybody gets what they need. Part of building an inclusive environment is not how you’re going to change the person. It’s how you’re going to change yourself and the environment in which the person is going to have to succeed.” Kaiser Permanente has domestic partner benefits to support the needs of its LGBTQ community and has taken great strides in increasing accessibility for individuals with disabilities.

The companies reviewed here are some of the most successful in the world. And they succeed while working to create and maintain diverse workforces. What they’ve made clear is that diversity programs alone are not enough to improve diversity in most organizations. But CEOs have the power to champion diversity by leading by example, setting goals and utilizing metrics, and holding their companies accountable.